Giving people a voice in care: from regulatory requirement to better service delivery

Giving people a voice in care: from regulatory requirement to better service delivery

by [Lahn Straney](/content/author/lahn-straney/ "Posts by Lahn Straney"/index.html)
29 June 2026

The language of care has shifted over time. For many years, “person-centred care” has been used to describe care that is organised around the needs, preferences and circumstances of the person receiving it. It remains an important concept, and it is still widely used in regulation, policy and practice.

But in many settings, particularly disability and home care, the language is moving further. Concepts such as person-led care, choice and control, self-determination and supported decision-making place greater emphasis on the person’s own authority over the services and supports they receive.

That distinction matters. A service can be designed around a person and still remain largely provider-led. The stronger test is whether people can influence the care they receive in practice. Can they ask for something to change? Can they raise a concern without fear of reprisal? Can they challenge a decision? Can they see that their feedback has been heard and acted on?

A feedback and complaints system is one of the clearest practical mechanisms for giving people that voice. These provide a structured way for people receiving care or support, families, representatives, workers and others to identify what is working, what is not working and where services need to improve.

This makes feedback and complaints much more than a compliance requirement. They are a direct source of information about a person’s lived experience of care and support. They can show where communication has broken down, where dignity has been compromised, where supports have not been responsive, or where the design of a service does not match what people actually need.

They can also identify issues earlier than audits, incidents or formal quality reviews. A concern raised by a person receiving care may be the first sign of a broader problem. A repeated theme in family feedback may point to a gap in communication. A complaint about the timing of visits, the way support is delivered or the lack of follow-up after an issue may reveal something that would not otherwise be visible in routine reporting.

This is particularly important in home care and disability services, where people may be actively directing their own support. In those settings, feedback is not simply a mechanism for expressing dissatisfaction. It is part of how people shape the care and support they receive.

A complaint is often treated as evidence that something has gone wrong. It is also evidence that someone still believes the service might listen.

The question for providers is whether they have systems that make listening possible. If people cannot speak up, raise concerns, request changes or see that their feedback has been acted on, then care remains provider-led, regardless of the language used.

Regulatory landscape: different jurisdictions, common direction

Feedback and complaints are now embedded in care regulation across multiple jurisdictions. The wording differs between aged care, disability, health and social care systems, but the direction is consistent. Providers are expected to make it easy for people to speak up, respond appropriately when they do, and use what they hear to improve services.

United Kingdom

England: CQC Regulation 16
In England, CQC Regulation 16, “Receiving and acting on complaints”, is practical and procedural. It requires that:

The CQC wording focuses on the operational discipline of complaint handling: receiving, recording, handling, responding and acting. It also makes clear that the obligation is not complete when the complaint is logged. Providers must investigate and act where failure is found.

Wales: Care Inspectorate Wales and Regulation 64
In Wales, the Regulated Services (Service Providers and Responsible Individuals) (Wales) Regulations 2017 include specific requirements for complaints policy and procedure.
Regulation 64 states:

The same regulation requires providers to:

The Welsh statutory guidance also expects providers to have an accessible complaints policy that explains who to approach, how people can be supported to make a complaint, how to access independent advocacy, how complaints will be dealt with, and the stages and timescales for the process.

The Welsh framework is notable because it connects the practical handling of complaints with organisational learning. Complaints are not just matters to resolve individually. They are also information that should be analysed to identify risks, patterns and opportunities for improvement.

Australia

Aged care: Strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards
In Australian aged care, the strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards place complaints and feedback within organisational governance. Providers are required to:

This wording is important because it links feedback directly to transparency, protection from reprisal and continuous improvement. It is not just a complaint-handling obligation. It is part of how an organisation demonstrates that people’s experiences are being heard and used to improve care.

Disability: NDIS Practice Standards
In disability, the language is more explicitly aligned with self-determination, choice and control. The NDIS Practice Standards require that:

In disability, this connection to person-led care is especially clear. A participant is not simply receiving care or support. They are exercising choice, directing support and raising issues when services do not reflect their goals, preferences or rights. A complaints system in this context is not only a mechanism for managing dissatisfaction. It is one way of protecting participant voice and agency.

New Zealand

Ngā Paerewa Health and Disability Services Standard NZS 8134:2021
In New Zealand, Ngā Paerewa Health and Disability Services Standard NZS 8134:2021 places complaints within a broader person and whānau-centred framework. The guidance includes the clear statement:

The guidance expects service providers to have implemented policies and procedures for complaint management, resolution or escalation. It also expects providers to support people receiving services to access independent advocates, provide understandable written and verbal information about how to make a complaint, protect people who make complaints, manage informal complaints, and take a proactive approach to addressing concerns before issues escalate.

The New Zealand framing is useful because it broadens the concept of voice beyond the individual alone. Whānau, culture, relationships and supported decision-making are part of how people experience care, make choices and raise concerns.

Common expectations across jurisdictions

Across these jurisdictions, several common expectations emerge.

The wording differs across jurisdictions, but the direction is consistent: listening is a regulated function of care.

From compliance to capability

Meeting the regulatory requirement is only part of the challenge. Most providers already have a complaints policy. Many have a complaints register. Some have posters, forms, email addresses, phone numbers and information in client handbooks.

The harder question is whether the organisation has a reliable way to hear what people are saying, respond consistently, escalate concerns where required, and use that information to improve care.

A feedback system is only meaningful if people feel safe to use it. This is especially important where people depend on the provider for ongoing personal care, support or accommodation. In those settings, people may worry that raising a concern could affect the care they receive, their relationship with staff or how responsive the provider will be in future.

In practice, feedback rarely arrives neatly through one channel. A concern about the timing of a home care visit may be raised in a phone call. A family member may email about communication. A worker may record that someone seemed uncomfortable raising an issue directly. A survey comment may point to the same underlying problem. A complaint may be resolved locally, but never reviewed alongside similar issues at other services.

Individually, these signals can look small. Together, they may show a pattern.

That is where many providers struggle. Feedback can sit across inboxes, paper forms, spreadsheets, phone notes, meeting minutes, incident systems, surveys and informal conversations. The person may have spoken up, but the organisation may still not have a reliable way to hear them.

A capable feedback and complaints system needs to do more than record that a complaint was received. It needs to support the full cycle: capture, acknowledgement, triage, investigation, response, escalation, resolution, review and improvement.

Closing the loop is also essential. People are more likely to speak up when they can see that their feedback has been taken seriously. This does not mean every request can be met, or every complaint upheld. But it does mean the person should understand that their concern was received, considered and responded to. Without that, feedback systems can appear to collect information without giving people any confidence that speaking up makes a difference.

The system also needs to make sure the right people are notified at the right time. Some feedback can be managed locally. Other concerns may need to be escalated because they involve safety, neglect, dignity, abuse, service failure, reputational risk, regulatory risk or repeated unresolved issues. Without clear escalation pathways and notifications, serious matters can be delayed, handled inconsistently or remain invisible to the people responsible for oversight.

This is particularly important in organisations delivering care across multiple sites, regions or service types. A local manager may be able to resolve an individual concern, but governance teams still need visibility of the issue, the response and any broader pattern. Notifications and escalations help ensure that feedback does not depend on one person remembering to forward an email, update a spreadsheet or raise an issue in the next meeting.

A mature feedback and complaints system also needs to make information visible at different levels of the organisation. Frontline teams need to know what requires follow-up. Managers need to see unresolved issues, overdue actions and recurring themes. Governance teams need visibility of risks, escalated matters, service-level variation and whether complaints and feedback are informing continuous improvement.

This is what moves feedback and complaints from a compliance process to an organisational capability. The aim is not simply to prove that a complaints process exists. It is to build an organisational system that can listen, respond, escalate, notify and learn.

A feedback system is working well when it helps resolve individual concerns, but also when it helps identify broader issues before they become larger failures. That might include repeated concerns about communication, timing of services, staff responsiveness, dignity, cultural safety, food, activities, family engagement or the way care is delivered in the home.

Feedback is not only negative. A previous MOA Benchmarking analysis of three months of resident feedback found that praise made up the majority of feedback received: 54% across the quarter, compared with 33% complaints and 13% suggestions.

This is important because positive feedback can identify what is working well, where staff practice should be recognised, and what can be replicated across other services. It can show where people feel respected, where communication is working, where care feels responsive, or where a particular team or service has created a better experience.

For providers, this is another reason to treat feedback as organisational intelligence rather than simply a complaints-management process. Complaints can identify gaps, risks and failures. Positive feedback can identify strengths, good practice and opportunities to standardise what is working.

A mature feedback system will make both visible.

The value is not in collecting feedback for its own sake. The value is in being able to act on it.

Being open to feedback is not enough. Providers also need the systems, workflows, escalation pathways, notifications and governance visibility to show that people’s voices are being heard and acted on.

How Evaran, powered by MOA Benchmarking, supports feedback and complaints management

Evaran, powered by MOA Benchmarking, supports providers to manage feedback and complaints through a structured, auditable workflow. The aim is not simply to store complaints more neatly. It is to give providers a practical, end-to-end way of managing feedback that supports both day-to-day improvement and regulatory expectations.

The Feedback and Complaints module supports feedback from any source and through multiple channels, including QR codes, website links, email and in-person capture. It also supports anonymous and confidential reporting, helping providers create safer pathways for people to raise concerns, including where whistleblower protections may apply.

Once feedback is captured, it can be categorised, assigned, investigated and managed through to resolution. This helps providers move beyond informal follow-up and local record keeping. Each matter can be tracked, actions can be documented, and the organisation can maintain evidence of acknowledgement, investigation, escalation, response and closure.

Escalations and notifications help ensure that serious or time-sensitive matters are visible to the right people. Concerns involving safety, dignity, neglect, abuse, service failure, repeated unresolved issues or regulatory risk can be escalated so they are not left sitting in an inbox, spreadsheet or local register. Where appropriate, complaints can also be escalated through to root cause analysis.

The module also supports governance and continuous improvement by making feedback easier to review at an organisational level. Dashboards and reporting help services understand trends, underlying categories of feedback, recurring issues, overdue actions and emerging risks. Providers can also benchmark their feedback profile against other services, helping them see whether particular issues are unusually common or rare and where improvement effort may need to be prioritised.

Feedback and complaints can also be linked to corrective actions or quality improvement activities within the continuous improvement plan. This helps close the loop between what people raise, how the organisation responds and what changes as a result.

For providers operating across aged care, disability, home care and community settings, this kind of system supports both regulatory evidence and better service delivery. It helps demonstrate that feedback has been received and managed, but also that people’s experiences are being reviewed, understood and used to improve care.

In this way, the module supports both day-to-day complaint management and the broader governance task of understanding what people are experiencing across services.

Making feedback visible and actionable

For providers, the question is not only whether a complaints process exists. It is whether feedback and complaints are being captured consistently, escalated appropriately, reviewed for broader learning and visible to the people responsible for governance and improvement.

If someone receiving care raised a concern today, would your organisation be confident that it would be captured, heard, acted on and used to improve care?

Evaran’s Feedback and Complaints module, powered by MOA Benchmarking, helps organisations capture feedback from multiple channels, manage actions through to resolution, identify themes and demonstrate how people’s voices are informing improvement.

Frequently Asked Questions: Feedback and Complaints in Care

What is the difference between person-centred care and person-led care?
Person-centred care is designed around the needs, preferences and circumstances of the individual. Person-led care goes further – it places the person in control of the decisions about their own care and support. A service can be person-centred and still remain largely provider-led. The stronger test is whether the person can influence, direct and shape the care they actually receive.

Why are feedback and complaints important in home care and disability services?
Feedback and complaints give people a direct way to raise concerns, request changes and shape the care they receive. In home care and disability settings, where people may be actively directing their own support, feedback is not just a mechanism for expressing dissatisfaction – it is part of how people exercise choice and control. For providers, it is also one of the earliest ways to identify problems before they become larger failures.

Is a complaints process a regulatory requirement for care providers?
Yes. Feedback and complaints requirements are embedded in care regulation across multiple jurisdictions. In England, CQC Regulation 16 requires providers to operate an accessible system for receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints. In Wales, Regulation 64 requires a complaints policy and analysis of feedback to identify improvements. In Australia, the Aged Care Quality Standards and NDIS Practice Standards both require providers to welcome feedback, protect people from reprisal and use complaints to drive continuous improvement. In New Zealand, Ngā Paerewa NZS 8134:2021 includes the explicit principle: “I have the right to complain.”

What percentage of care feedback is positive?
Analysis of three months of resident feedback by MOA Benchmarking found that 54% of feedback received was positive, compared with 33% complaints and 13% suggestions. This means that for most providers, the majority of feedback is not complaints at all – and that feedback systems which only focus on complaints are missing more than half of what people are saying.

What should a good feedback and complaints system include?
A capable feedback and complaints system should support the full cycle: capture, acknowledgement, triage, investigation, response, escalation, resolution, review and improvement. It should be accessible through multiple channels, support anonymous reporting, protect people from reprisal, escalate serious concerns to the right people, and make patterns and themes visible at a governance level. Closing the loop – so that people can see their feedback has been heard and acted on – is essential.

What is meant by closing the loop on feedback?
Closing the loop means ensuring that the person who raised a concern or gave feedback receives a response that shows their input was received, considered and acted on. It does not mean every request will be met or every complaint upheld – but it does mean the person understands what happened as a result of speaking up. Without this, feedback systems can collect information without giving people any confidence that raising a concern makes a difference.

How does feedback support continuous improvement in care?
Feedback – both positive and negative – is a direct source of information about people’s lived experience of care. Complaints can identify gaps, risks and service failures. Positive feedback can identify what is working well and where good practice should be recognised and replicated. When reviewed alongside incident data, audits and quality reviews, feedback helps organisations understand what is happening at the point of care in a way that formal reporting alone cannot capture.

What is Evaran and how does it support feedback and complaints management?
Evaran, powered by MOA Benchmarking, is a care governance platform that includes a Feedback and Complaints module. It supports providers to capture feedback from multiple channels – including QR codes, website links, email and in-person – manage complaints through to resolution, escalate serious concerns, and review trends and themes at an organisational level. It is designed to help providers meet regulatory requirements across aged care, disability, home care and community settings, and to use feedback as intelligence for continuous improvement.

By Lahn Straney
Associate Professor Lahn Straney is an epidemiologist and Chief Scientific Officer leading data and analytics across Evaran’s four care technology platforms. His work focuses on quality indicators, risk adjustment and real-time monitoring of variation and risk, working with providers and government on the evolution of quality measurement. A regular speaker on practical data use in care settings, he holds a PhD in Epidemiology and Biostatistics from the University of Queensland, holds adjunct appointments at Monash University and the University of Leeds, and has co-authored over 80 peer-reviewed publications.